Tag Archives: digital media

The Attention Economy

There is a very common complaint–usually voiced by an older person with “know-it-all” pretensions–about “kids these days.” Although that complaint has echoed through history (ever since Socrates, actually), today it tends to focus on the ubiquity of screens…the inescapable elements of our digital world.

It is certainly true that we now occupy an unprecedented environment, and there’s really no telling how or whether it is warping the young of the species. (If I had to guess, young people were different post-Gutenberg than they’d been pre-Gutenberg–and I would wager that some folks weren’t all that happy with that change, either.) The way we socialize the young into constantly changing cultures is inevitably evolving, and determining whether the changes are healthy or damaging is pretty speculative.

We just don’t know.

That said, a recent essay in the most recent Hedgehog Review, addressing that issue, was alternately annoying and thought-provoking. It was titled “The Great Malformation: A personal skirmish in the battle for attention.” After reminding readers of the often-quoted African proverb that “it takes a village to raise a child,” the author indulged in the all-to-common verbal handwringing:

The villagers are too often found behind closed doors, watching television or surfing the Internet. When they do appear in public, they are increasingly prone to do so with portable electronic devices in hand, phoning or surfing or tweeting their way through virtual realms, leaving the village streets full of moving bodies but emptied of human presence. This same retreat from shared physical spaces is observable even—or, rather, especially—in the inner sanctum of the home, where brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, parents and children, are increasingly found alongside each other yet absent to each other, cocooned in mesmerizing solipsism, ghosting even themselves and their own lives. The human race is on its way to becoming seven or eight billion perfect societies of one, each bound in what Stephen Colbert once called “solitarity” with other human beings, somewhere or another—who knows where—who themselves are busy absenting themselves from their families and homes. Where are the children being raised in such a world heading? What are they being urged to care about, cultivated to do and to be? What conception of the human good, if any, is implicit in, supported by, or coincident with this sort of upbringing?

I nearly stopped reading. Agitation about something we all know, without reference to data that illuminates what’s occurring, is just another version of “get off my lawn.” But the essay then took a different direction, arguing that today’s screen fixations come from an intertwining of culture and economics. The article is lengthy, and much less superficial than the cited paragraph suggests.

A few observations that struck me:

The market economy torn free from the rest of cultural life some half-dozen generations ago has now turned upon its parent and consumed her. The work of the polity that Aristotle regarded as most crucial—the acculturation of successive generations—increasingly occurs as the unplanned aggregate effect of corporate profit-seeking, in a direction that few regard as genuinely good for the next generation. This novel experiment in socialization raises anew the concern that we might prove unable to keep our republic (as Benjamin Franklin put it), or even our humanity….

As industrial capitalism matures, it gradually colonizes large swaths of the culture, whose evolution is then subject to being steered by the same decentralized and unplanned processes that serve up the other benefits and burdens of capitalism…We are accustomed to this arrangement and not generally awake to its perversity. When we enter the sphere of getting and spending, our activity is shaped by the pursuit of profits, and unlikely to cleave to any compelling conception of the human good. Presumably we do this in order to gain the resources we need to pursue genuine goods in the remainder of our lives. When the market swallows this remainder and seeks to reshape it to maximize profits, it becomes an impediment, not a contribution, to human flourishing.

This cultural revolution could not have come so far so fast without tapping into a very personal resource, located in the inner realm of conscious experience: human attention. There is growing recognition that attention has become an exceedingly valuable and hotly contested commodity.

From radio and television, to advertising, to video games…it’s hard to argue that today’s culture hasn’t devolved into a competition for eyeballs and clicks. And it is worth asking ourselves what the long-term consequences of that devolution portend.

A brief blog post cannot do justice to the essay’s lengthy analysis. It’s well worth reading the entire article.

I don’t agree with everything in it, but it’s a provocative read.

Comments

Raising Cyber-Citizens

Some intriguing research on civic education is being conducted by Professor Joseph Kahne, the John and Martha Davidson Professor of Education at Mills College in California. Kahne is investigating the effect of digital media on young people’s political knowledge and engagement, and his preliminary findings (let’s face it, at this stage of our ‘cyber-world,’ everything we know is preliminary) are pretty fascinating.

Kahne says that half of all 18-20-year-olds say their voting decisions are influenced by what they learn online.

Seventy-five percent of America’s youth are active on Facebook; and ninety-five percent of teenagers between the ages of 14 and 17 use the Internet. Almost a quarter of all smartphones are used by teens and young adults between 13 and 24.

Youth under twenty-five are more often recruited for civic or political activities online than through other methods.

Before you wring your hands and–in the manner of all passing generations–denounce this state of affairs as the harbinger of a disconnected, disinterested polity, consider some of Kahne’s other findings: even controlling for prior levels of engagement, when young people became highly involved in online, interest-driven communities (Harry Potter fans, sports fans, followers of particular music genres, etc.), they became more likely to volunteer in their communities, raise money for a charitable cause, or work together with others to solve a community problem. These groups are also less likely to serve as “echo chambers” and more likely to introduce young people to social and political perspectives other than their own than their off-line lives in communities of like-minded residents. Even when the  online communities discuss sports or hobbies, political matters emerge and are discussed–and Hobbit aficionados are not likely to be politically homogeneous.

Kahne has even collaborated with Pew’s Internet and American Life Project to explore the ways in which video games can be used to provide youth with civic learning experiences, and he cites Games for Change, an organization working to exploit that possibility.

Cyberspace certainly presents parents and educators with new challenges–some of them worthy of our concern. But like all change, it also opens up new opportunities. The Internet is a tool, and like all tools, morally and educationally neutral. It’s how we use it that makes the difference.